Re: {minutes} TTWG Meeting 2018-03-29

> because the browsers don't provide sufficient support (specifically
Microsoft's browsers - the others support the minimal feature set)

How to reconcile this with David Singer's statement that "*VTT is supported
in all major browsers"?  *Also, the how is "minimal feature set" defined.
Must be more than SRT, I expect.  I am especially curious about WebVTT
support for Japanese subtitles.  We have not seen a WebVTT implementation
that can properly the essential Japanese subtitle features.  Is there such
an implementation that someone can point us to?

On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 7:55 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Congratulations on the resolution for webvtt to move to CR! I'll help
> where I can.
>
> About the question of interest: many video player publishers had to write
> their own webvtt interpreters & renderers because the browsers don't
> provide sufficient support (specifically Microsoft's browsers - the others
> support the minimal feature set). At FOMS we consistently hear the request
> by the player vendors and content publishers who don't want to have to
> write and maintain their own captioning library but the state of
> implementation in browsers is a problem. It's a chicken and egg thing and
> it's my hope that a push for CR/REC will change that.
>
> I hope this helps.
>
> Cheers,
> Silvia.
>
> On Fri., 30 Mar. 2018, 3:25 am Nigel Megitt, <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> Thanks all for attending today's TTWG meeting. Minutes can be found in
>> HTML format at https://www.w3.org/2018/03/29-tt-minutes.html
>>
>> In text format:
>>
>>    [1]W3C
>>
>>       [1] http://www.w3.org/
>>
>>                 Timed Text Working Group Teleconference
>>
>> 29 Mar 2018
>>
>>    See also: [2]IRC log
>>
>>       [2] https://www.w3.org/2018/03/29-tt-irc
>>
>> Attendees
>>
>>    Present
>>           Cyril, Pierre, Nigel, dsinger, Thierry, Philippe
>>
>>    Regrets
>>           Andreas
>>
>>    Chair
>>           Nigel
>>
>>    Scribe
>>           nigel
>>
>> Contents
>>
>>      * [3]Topics
>>          1. [4]This meeting
>>          2. [5]F2F meetings
>>          3. [6]TTML1 3rd Edition CR
>>          4. [7]IMSC
>>          5. [8]Update feature list per TTML2 imsc#350
>>          6. [9]Clarify the use of recommended character sets
>>             imsc#354
>>          7. [10]TTWG Charter
>>          8. [11]WebVTT
>>          9. [12]TTWG Charter
>>         10. [13]Travis
>>         11. [14]Audio Profile of TTML2
>>         12. [15]Meeting Close
>>      * [16]Summary of Action Items
>>      * [17]Summary of Resolutions
>>      __________________________________________________________
>>
>>    <scribe> scribe: nigel
>>
>> This meeting
>>
>>    Nigel: Next week I'm able to make the call, but the week after,
>>    the 12th, I can't.
>>
>>    Cyril: I also can't make the 12th.
>>
>>    Pierre: Regrets for me for the 19th.
>>
>>    Nigel: For today, we have TTWG Charter, if there's more to
>>    discuss on that - will wait for
>>    ... staff to join before confirming.
>>    ... We also have TPAC, and a possible F2F in Munich in May,
>>    ... TTML1 3rd Edition CR needs to be discussed.
>>    ... Not sure if there's anything to discuss on TTML2.
>>    ... For IMSC there is one agenda point, a pull request, which
>>    we may be able to resolve with
>>    ... a brief conversation.
>>    ... If we have time we can go through the IMSC vNext Reqs pull
>>    requests, which have been
>>    ... open for a while.
>>    ... I don't think there's anything to discuss on CSS.
>>    ... Do we have something for WebVTT?
>>
>>    David: Yes, we should approve the transition to CR.
>>
>>    Nigel: Any preferences about what order we do these in?
>>
>>    Pierre: I'd really like to close the IMSC ticket, because it is
>>    blocking CR.
>>    ... If there's anything missing on that push-back on TTML1 we
>>    should address that ASAP.
>>
>>    Nigel: We should be able to get through everything today -
>>    we're scheduled for 2 hours.
>>
>> F2F meetings
>>
>>    Nigel: Thierry wants us to discuss if we wish to meet at TPAC
>>    in Lyon, which is at the end
>>    ... of October this year.
>>    ... I expect us to be getting towards the end of our Rec
>>    transitions for all our specs at that
>>    ... time, but I expect there will be a lot to discuss, so I
>>    propose that we ask for what we
>>    ... usually ask for, i.e. 2 days.
>>
>>    Pierre: Sounds good.
>>
>>    Nigel: Okay, I'll complete the WBS for TTWG asking for that.
>>    ... There will be a request for any groups we don't want to
>>    clash with, or want to have joint
>>    ... meetings with. I would at least propose that we ask for a
>>    joint meeting with CSS WG like
>>    ... we did last time, on the basis that we expect to have made
>>    some progress.
>>    ... Any other thoughts?
>>
>>    group: [silence]
>>
>>    Nigel: The next proposal is that we have a f2f on May 22 and
>>    23rd at IRT in Munich. Andreas
>>    ... has kindly offered to make space available there before the
>>    IRT subtitle technology symposium,
>>    ... and I think the timing will be good to iterate over TTML2
>>    and IMSC 1.1 tests for the test suite.
>>
>>    Cyril: I might be able to make that.
>>
>>    Pierre: It's unlikely I'd be able to make it.
>>
>>    Nigel: Okay, I'll send an email round about this; for now it is
>>    a proposal. I think if we
>>    ... intend to talk about test suites we need the right people
>>    in attendance.
>>
>> TTML1 3rd Edition CR
>>
>>    Nigel: We submitted the transition request to CR for TTML1
>>    Third Edition and Ralph
>>    ... responded expressing surprise that no new tests have been
>>    created to verify that implementations
>>    ... conform to the clarifications and error corrections. He
>>    asked if the test suite has been
>>    ... updated at all. He's basically asking us to update the test
>>    suite to demonstrate it.
>>
>>    Pierre: I think it only needs to be updated selectively to
>>    cover the areas changed.
>>
>>    Nigel: I think that's right.
>>
>>    Pierre: I think that's possible to do.
>>
>>    Nigel: I think if we're claiming that implementations meet the
>>    updates already then we need
>>    ... to provide evidence.
>>
>>    Pierre: My recommendation is to change the SOTD to include exit
>>    criteria that require
>>    ... passing tests, and then create those test suites.
>>    Alternatively I could provide GitHub
>>    ... pointers to issues on imsc.js, but that might be a lot of
>>    work with no guarantee of success.
>>
>>    Nigel: That would work.
>>    ... If we're going to do that we need to make the updates and
>>    re-file the transition request.
>>
>>    Pierre: I'll make the SOTD updates.
>>
>>    Nigel: When that's done, please let me and Thierry know so
>>    Thierry can update the transition request.
>>
>> IMSC
>>
>>    Nigel: we have one pull request on the agenda.
>>
>> Update feature list per TTML2 imsc#350
>>
>>    github: [18]https://github.com/w3c/imsc/pull/350
>>
>>      [18] https://github.com/w3c/imsc/pull/350
>>
>>    Nigel: I think the main issue here is the syntax permitted for
>>    tts:extent.
>>    ... I don't understand why the `auto` value is permitted for
>>    `tts:extent` on `tt:tt`...
>>
>>    Pierre: It was permitted before.
>>
>>    Nigel: But has its meaning changed? It used to be defined as
>>    the Root Container Region,
>>    ... now it is defined as "contains" whose meaning is defined by
>>    appendix H.
>>
>>    Pierre: When I went through this before I decided that
>>    "contains" ends up meaning the same
>>    ... as "auto" used to mean in TTML1 - it yielded the right
>>    outcome.
>>    ... Note that in IMSC pixelAspectRatio is prohibited, so
>>    "contains" resolves as the display
>>    ... aspect ratio of the root container region.
>>
>>    Cyril: And the algorithm in H.1 and H.2 match?
>>
>>    Pierre: Yes, if there's no DAR and PAR then it's H.1.1 which
>>    corresponds to TTML1 100% 100%,
>>    ... i.e. auto semantics.
>>
>>    Nigel: So Pierre you're arguing that contain and auto resolve
>>    to the same so it is better to
>>    ... have a single syntax option rather than allow the
>>    semantically more precise "contain"?
>>
>>    Pierre: Yes.
>>
>>    Cyril: There may be cases where auto and contain resolve
>>    differently?
>>
>>    Pierre: Outside the tt element, maybe, but on the tt element
>>    they are identical.
>>
>>    Cyril: Yes, the spec says if the value is auto, and its the tt
>>    element, then it maps to contain.
>>    ... So they are equivalent.
>>    ... I think the constraint on IMSC is correct.
>>
>>    Nigel: Okay, I'm persuaded.
>>    ... The next comment here is about extends and restricts.
>>    Pierre commented that
>>    ... there's no requirement for them, and presumably there's no
>>    benefit identified for them here?
>>
>>    Pierre: No, I have not.
>>
>>    Nigel: I can see that from an implementation perspective it may
>>    add a fair amount of code
>>    ... and tests to allow extends and restricts.
>>
>>    Pierre: Also this new TTML2 syntax was not broken out as a
>>    specific feature designator.
>>    ... I think I raised an issue on TTML2 for that.
>>    ... Maybe later it will be made a feature and we can then
>>    refactor this text.
>>    ... It would be a lot clearer.
>>
>>    Nigel: Ok, there are conflicts here but I'm happy to approve
>>    the changes.
>>
>>    SUMMARY: @nigelmegitt to approve the pull request
>>
>>    Pierre: The conflicts are super-boring, I'll fix those.
>>
>>    github-bot, end topic
>>
>> Clarify the use of recommended character sets imsc#354
>>
>>    github: [19]https://github.com/w3c/imsc/pull/354
>>
>>      [19] https://github.com/w3c/imsc/pull/354
>>
>>    Nigel: You're waiting on someone from i18n on this, Pierre?
>>
>>    Pierre: Yes, during the call people used the term "safe" but
>>    the comments were against that.
>>    ... Instead, I've proposed to use "common" and am waiting for a
>>    response on that.
>>
>>    Nigel: That change was made on the pull request, but there's no
>>    comment about it, but
>>    ... there is on the issue?
>>
>>    Pierre: Oh yes, I could prompt Addison to review with a comment
>>    on the pull request. I'll just do that.
>>
>>    Nigel: I'm not sure what we can do more on this at the moment.
>>
>>    Pierre: It is only a matter of finding the right terminology
>>    now, I think we're good on the rest.
>>
>>    Nigel: Looks that way.
>>
>>    SUMMARY: WG awaiting review feedback from i18n.
>>
>>    Pierre: We should communicate to them that we plan to request
>>    transition to CR in 7 days
>>    ... so they need to come back soon if they have a strong
>>    concern.
>>
>>    Nigel: That sounds like an action for me to send a message
>>    immediately after this meeting.
>>
>>    github-bot, end topic
>>
>> TTWG Charter
>>
>>    Thierry: Not much to discuss - I have submitted the draft
>>    charter to W3M, and I think they
>>    ... were supposed to review it yesterday but I have nothing to
>>    report yet.
>>
>> WebVTT
>>
>>    <scribe> Chair: David
>>
>>    David: At TPAC we looked at the transition request, and the
>>    actions requested have been
>>    ... done. We were waiting on closing out some issues on the
>>    spec which Nigel was unable
>>    ... to get to for the first few weeks of this year. My feeling
>>    is that the remaining issues can
>>
>>    <dsinger>
>>    [20]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tt/2018Mar/0133
>>    .html
>>
>>      [20] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tt/2018Mar/0133.html
>>
>>    David: be closed off in CR. I would like to ask for the formal
>>    agreement of the group to do
>>    ... the final transition. I sent the final draft of the request
>>    a couple of days ago.
>>    ... I updated the wide review page a couple of days ago to
>>    reflect the current status. I hope
>>    ... we're at the formal stages now - we had the [scribe loses
>>    track]
>>    ... There will likely be some changes to be made during CR,
>>    which are not major changes
>>    ... for implementors but may for example require a change to
>>    the computed CSS property value for something.
>>    ... I think we need an updated version of the spec with SOTD
>>    etc for CR, which Silvia and/or
>>    ... Thierry can do.
>>
>>    <dsinger> The remaining edits are clarification, warning, and
>>    so on and don’t represent technical changes to the
>>    specification, so I think it’s safe to do them along with any
>>    other disambiguations needed by implementers during CR.
>>
>>    Nigel: What I normally do at this point is ask Thierry what is
>>    needed now for the transition request?
>>
>>    Thierry: For the SOTD there are a few things that need to be
>>    put in, first the exit criteria.
>>    ... From David's statement, that is like what we have been
>>    using within this group, 2 implementations
>>    ... for each feature, so that sound good.
>>    ... The second thing I have not seen are the features at risk,
>>    because there are some features
>>    ... that are not implemented like regions and some others.
>>
>>    David: We discussed this, it's at the end of point 1, and as
>>    discussed, we don't want to drop
>>    ... them so we aren't marking them as at risk. They are not
>>    features to drop if they are not
>>    ... implemented. The group wanted to wait until they're
>>    implemented, and have no features at risk.
>>
>>    Thierry: Okay. Another thing is for the test suite and the
>>    implementation report. Of course
>>    ... we have to fill the implementation report in later. We
>>    should have a link to a test suite
>>    ... or something if it is incomplete.
>>
>>    David: Yes, that's also in the transition request, there's a
>>    fairly thorough test suite in
>>    ... web platform tests, which generates automated reports for
>>    browsers, and we're going to
>>    ... have work out how to do that for non-browser
>>    implementations during CR. That's for
>>    ... me and the group to do during CR.
>>
>>    Nigel: We don't normally ask for that at this stage?
>>
>>    Thierry: We don't need the whole thing, just a link to whatever
>>    is there.
>>
>>    David: We believe it is pretty thorough at this point, I'm sure
>>    there are bugs that people will
>>    ... find during implementation work.
>>
>>    Thierry: The last bit is the wide review, I guess it is done,
>>    we have a URI, and it will be up
>>    ... to the Director to review it.
>>    ... The last thing is WG approval for transitioning.
>>    ... I need a link to point to.
>>
>>    PROPOSAL: Agree to the CR transition to WebVTT
>>
>>    Pierre: For clarity, that's based on the gh-pages branch on
>>    GitHub?
>>
>>    David: Yes, that's correct, Silvia will need to update that.
>>
>>    Pierre: And all the licence and IPR issues have been addressed
>>    and there's not going to be
>>    ... any drama there?
>>
>>    David: I don't think so, no exclusions have been filed so far
>>    and we asked for FSA from all
>>    ... the CG contributors.
>>
>>    Pierre: And some of the contributions have been from the CG
>>    since then, or all from members of the WG?
>>    ... (after that commitment was received)
>>
>>    David: Even if they came from the CG they did sign a CLA. The
>>    only issue would be if they
>>    ... contributed someone else's IPR and that's a door I don't
>>    know how to close. There's nothing
>>    ... that's giving me any anxiety.
>>
>>    Pierre: So the next step is to create a CR branch for the group
>>    to review the final version.
>>    ... When will that be available?
>>
>>    David: You'd like a formal branch in GitHub?
>>
>>    Pierre: Normally that's what happens, so there's a formal
>>    document to review.
>>    ... I'm encouraging you to do this as soon as possible so there
>>    aren't any surprises?
>>
>>    David: I'll see what we can do - is there anyone on the team
>>    who can help?
>>
>>    Thierry: I can help on the SOTD of course.
>>
>>    Pierre: I don't have any a priori objections, thank you for
>>    doing all this additional work.
>>
>>    Nigel: I'd second Pierre's request, let's have the actual
>>    document that we are going to approve on the table.
>>
>>    Thierry: It has to be a CR version for approval by the
>>    Director.
>>
>>    Pierre: And to be clear, on the open issues you do not expect
>>    any formal objections?
>>
>>    David: I'm not seeing any clouds on the horizon for the
>>    remaining issues.
>>
>>    Nigel: Me neither.
>>    ... David, you've been clear that you have limited resource for
>>    chairing and editing. Will there
>>    ... be the effort available to make any changes and to work on
>>    it post-CR so that it can get
>>    ... to Rec? My concern is that it could linger in CR forever.
>>
>>    <dsinger> PROPOSAL: The editor and the team to prepare the CR.
>>    The WG approves the CR transition, with said prepared CR to be
>>    presented to the Director for approval, using the transition
>>    request in
>>    [21]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tt/2018Mar/0133
>>    .html
>>
>>      [21] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tt/2018Mar/0133.html
>>
>>    David: I share your antipathy to specs staying in CR
>>    indefinitely, I would suggest that if
>>    ... we cannot get to Rec within the next Charter period then at
>>    that point we publish the
>>    ... spec as a Note and stop working on it in the WG.
>>
>>    Nigel: Thank you, by time-boxing the CR that addresses my
>>    concern.
>>
>>    Pierre: I think you can confidently create a CR ready spec and
>>    state a resolution to proceed
>>    ... with CR with this draft, intended to be the CR.
>>    ... Then there's no surprise. Otherwise we could take a
>>    resolution today, and in 2 weeks there's
>>    ... something objectionable to someone and then we restart the
>>    clock in 2 weeks.
>>
>>    David: I was expecting the group to approve transition today.
>>    Thierry, can you prepare the
>>    ... CR version of the document today?
>>
>>    <dsinger> Can Thierry do the pull request for the SOTD section
>>    in the next 24 hours?
>>
>>    Thierry: I can work on it, and probably not in the next 2
>>    hours, but tomorrow morning.
>>    ... We also need in the SOTD the date for earliest advancement
>>    beyond CR. Probably we can
>>    ... put 3 months or whatever.
>>
>>    Nigel: Good point.
>>
>>    Thierry: I propose at least 2 months.
>>
>>    David: It's not going to happen for at least 6 months. We need
>>    implementations of the changes
>>    ... and of regions. Give it 6 months.
>>
>>    Thierry: You don't need to do that, you can do it in 3 if those
>>    criteria are met.
>>
>>    David: Okay, put 3 months then, that's fine.
>>
>>    Philippe: Hello, I apologise for arriving late.
>>    ... I don't mean to derail this meeting, but I have one
>>    question. We have not started review
>>    ... of the TTWG charter already, but I have one question: How
>>    is WebVTT used on the web
>>    ... today? Not an implementation question, a usage question. Is
>>    it actually used on the web,
>>    ... or only as an input format so video services can do their
>>    own thing with captions.
>>    ... TTML is used as an input format, and then there's client
>>    side JS that takes that and displays
>>    ... the subtitles and captions at the right time. YouTube,
>>    Netflix and others don't use TTML or WebVTT,
>>    ... they use their own code to present the captions.
>>    ... So you don't need native implementation of captions.
>>    ... The second question is how are we going to be able to get
>>    out of CR for WebVTT?
>>    ... If my assumption is correct, there is no incentive for
>>    browser implementers to update
>>    ... their implementations. That's part of the questions that we
>>    are asking ourselves generally
>>    ... about the future of captions on the web.
>>
>>    David: I agree a lot of captions are done with polyfills and
>>    HTML/CSS created on the fly.
>>    ... One of the issues with WebVTT is that it is not used for
>>    presentation.
>>    ... I do know that in [apple products] we take the WebVTT
>>    natively. [sorry, scribe subject to a lot of local background
>>    noise]
>>
>>    Philippe: Ok, I didn't find any statistics, for example in
>>    Chrome, of how often the native
>>    ... implementations are used today.
>>
>>    David: Okay, I'll try to find out.
>>
>>    Philippe: The fear is that it is not used so we will never get
>>    to the top of the priority list for browsers.
>>
>>    David: I share your concern, if you can do an adequate job with
>>    polyfills then who needs to
>>    ... do a native implementation.
>>
>>    Philippe: Yes, that doesn't undermine it as an input format.
>>    ... For example I do not know if the WebVTT implementation
>>    natively would allow positioning
>>    ... of captions on the fly like YouTube allows.
>>    ... We may be chasing something that the market out there is
>>    not interested in having in terms
>>    ... of native implementation.
>>
>>    David: Right. Yes.
>>
>>    Nigel: In terms of resolutions, I think the next steps are to
>>    produce the CR version of the
>>    ... document and then for David as Chair to send a message to
>>    the group specifying the
>>    ... resolution that he believes has been made, and highlighting
>>    the review period under the
>>    ... group charter decision policy (which is 10 working days).
>>
>>    Philippe: At the moment we could try to run the transition
>>    request in parallel as long as it
>>    ... is clear to the Director that there is an opportunity for
>>    the decision to be reversed.
>>    ... On the IPR question, if there's a question about CG/WG
>>    working, here it is the same
>>    ... as if a contribution comes in on the WG public mailing
>>    list, where we have to figure out
>>    ... how substantive the contribution is and address that. It
>>    doesn't change the risk
>>    ... associated with IPR in the spec that is not directly from a
>>    contributor. If you have concerns
>>    ... about that then we can engage with our legal team here and
>>    make an assessment.
>>    ... If you tell us that everyone who contributed is in the CG
>>    and the WG then we don't have
>>    ... an issue.
>>
>> TTWG Charter
>>
>>    Philippe: A comment - the agreement you described before is
>>    that if you do not have Rec
>>    ... of WebVTT by the end of the next Charter then you would
>>    drop it. If the theory is correct
>>    ... that WebVTT is used as an input format rather than a native
>>    implementation then it would
>>    ... be no surprise if that happens.
>>
>>    David: One question is if you would accept two implementations
>>    from Apple as being
>>    ... independent, because this is in fact the case.
>>
>>    Philippe: Interesting question, I don't know the answer but I
>>    can ask and get back to you.
>>
>>    Nigel: I have asked this recently, as an issue on the Process.
>>
>>    Philippe: Yes, you would need to have some evidence that the
>>    two teams creating the implementations
>>    ... did so by interpreting the specification directly without
>>    any other communication.
>>
>>    Nigel: Any other questions or comments on the Charter?
>>
>>    Philippe: Not as far as I know. Thank you by the way for
>>    providing the draft Charter.
>>
>> Travis
>>
>>    Philippe: I'm in communication with Travis to try to make the
>>    pull request smoother.
>>    ... I do not know why the repositories have been deactivated.
>>    We are reaching peaks of 60 concurrent
>>    ... jobs on travis at the moment and it keeps increasing. They
>>    are doing some of our jobs
>>    ... in batches and they can get delayed before they are even
>>    started. So there's both a delay
>>    ... and then a long queue before they run. So the plan is to
>>    conduct an experiment on travis
>>    ... to give them a bit of money to provide small guarantees and
>>    see how it affects our jobs
>>    ... being run. In parallel I've been talking to the web
>>    platform tests people because they are
>>    ... consuming more than half our jobs, just for testing
>>    purposes, and we cannot separate
>>    ... them because they are on the same organisation on GitHub.
>>    We're potentially considering
>>    ... moving them to a "separate" organisation on GitHub because
>>    that project is going to
>>    ... grow more and more. Then we can separate testing from
>>    production of recommendations
>>    ... more easily. Every time a pull request on WPT is done it
>>    triggers 12 concurrent jobs.
>>
>>    Nigel: Thanks for that.
>>
>> Audio Profile of TTML2
>>
>>    Nigel: I've been in discussion with various organisations
>>    (we're up to 12 right now) about
>>    ... setting up a CG to produce a profile of TTML2 for audio
>>    description, and hope that will
>>    ... go ahead in the next few weeks.
>>    ... Just noting it here in case people want to join.
>>
>>    Pierre: That's in a CG not the WG?
>>
>>    Nigel: Yes, and hopefully bring it to a future iteration of the
>>    TTWG Charter when there is
>>    ... a document to work on. This is partly about WG mechanics -
>>    getting onto the Charter
>>    ... without a document as the basis of a specification seems
>>    harder these days, so this way
>>    ... we can have easy participation from the interested parties
>>    and then there's a path towards
>>    ... getting to Rec later, albeit one that requires more W3C
>>    membership in the case that the
>>    ... contributors are not currently members.
>>
>>    Pierre: And the domain is all applications?
>>
>>    Nigel: Yes, not only broadcast, also web, and not making any
>>    assumptions about where in
>>    ... the distribution chain any audio mixing might happen.
>>
>>    Pierre: Thanks.
>>
>>    David: What I did with WebVTT is I got a FSA signed by the CG
>>    participants - if you're
>>    ... expecting them to give IPR away for free then they don't
>>    get anything back.
>>
>>    Nigel: Right, and I've highlighted this to the participants
>>    right from the beginning.
>>
>>    David: It took me months to get this for WebVTT.
>>
>>    Pierre: Yes, when the legal team looks at it things could take
>>    longer.
>>
>> Meeting Close
>>
>>    Nigel: Thanks everyone! [adjourns meeting]
>>
>> Summary of Action Items
>>
>> Summary of Resolutions
>>
>>    [End of minutes]
>>      __________________________________________________________
>>
>>
>>     Minutes formatted by David Booth's [22]scribe.perl version
>>     1.152 ([23]CVS log)
>>     $Date: 2018/03/29 16:23:30 $
>>
>>      [22] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
>>      [23] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
>>
>>

Received on Monday, 2 April 2018 06:34:20 UTC